Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "With North Korea's failed missile launch Friday, it is clear many nations around the globe are attempting to acquire missiles that can carry larger payloads and go further. Such moves have made the United States and its allies very nervous. Missile defense has been debated since the 1980's with such debate back once again the headlines. Most missile defense platforms have technical issues and are very expensive. One idea: use drones instead. '... a high-speed (~3.5 to 5.0 km/s), two-stage, hit-to-kill interceptor missile, launched from a Predator-type UAV can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase.' Could a Drone really take down a North Korea missile? 'A physics-based simulator can estimate the capabilities of a high-altitude, long endurance UAV-launched boost-phase interceptor (HALE BPI) launched from an altitude of approximately 60,000 feet. Enabled by the revolution in UAVs, this proposed boost-phase interceptor, based on off-the-shelf technology, can be deployed in operationally feasible stations on the periphery of North Korea.'"

Not a drone, but the US Navy's Sea-based X-band RADAR (SBX-1) [wikipedia.org] — a completely self-propelled (max speed: 8 knots), semi-submersible modified oil platform designed for use in high winds and heavy seas — is also part of the Missile Defense Agency's Ballistic Missile Defense System. It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away. SBX-1 sailed to the region to monitor the North Korean launch:

It can track an object the size of a baseball from about 3000 miles away.

How many baseballs can it track at one time? And once it has figured out which are the real baseballs and which are fake*, how quickly interceptors be launched after the real ones?

*The details of which are highly classified. Because dummys and countermeasures are dirt cheap compared to the discrimination technology. Once you know what the SBX-1 is looking for, ICBM payloads can be updated inexpensively. And they are classified because we have publicly demonstrated how well we can see all this space junk. And how well we can shoot a piece of it down. But funding would be at risk should the public realize that an important piece in the middle is missing.

And you've also demonstrated, even if not your intent, quite well why secrets are necessary, even in open and democratic societies — not to keep them from our own citizens, but to prevent adversaries from understanding our capabilities, techniques, sources, and methods.

We can hope that those granted the clearance to perform the necessary oversight are honest enough to tell us the truth: Whether or not this missile defense system actually works. Without telling us how or showing us the evidence. I'd have more faith in them if their political lives didn't depend on repeated cash infusions from the very companies that build the stuff that may or may not work.

Anytime drones come up, I usually see a "so I just whip out my Glock19 and have some target practice" response from the peanut gallery. I just found this [youtube.com], suggesting that you'd better have more than one clip, and a clear field behind the target, if you really want to take a small drone down from any distance.

Missile defense has been debated since before there were practical missiles. It was a particularly hot topic in the late '60s, with the conclusion at the time very similar to the result demonstrated i

"One great engine to affect this in America would be a large standing army, maintained out of our own pockets, to be at the devotion of our oppressors. This would be introduced under pretext of defending us, but, in fact, to make our bondage and misery complete."

Hey, I appreciate a non sequitur quote from the founding fathers as much as anyone — or should we take this to mean that the United States monitoring an attempted long-range missile test by North Korea is somehow "oppressing" us?

As long as they follow the first amendment, which I note has no exceptions for national security including enforcing keeping secrets.Of course if it was important I'm sure the constitution would be amended so congress could make laws limiting speech.It's funny how the people who most go on about following the constitution are often the quickest to break it.

Hey, I appreciate a non sequitur quote from the founding fathers as much as anyone â" or should we take this to mean that the United States monitoring an attempted long-range missile test by North Korea is somehow "oppressing" us?

I think what deanklear was trying to imply was that once the U.S. government has the ability to keep swarms of cheap drones in the air 24/7, it's not too many steps from that point to keeping them in the air 24/7 over the USA and thereby making it practical for a small number of people to keep the rest of the population under permanent surveillance and/or fear of sudden "death from above".

If you think the purpose of government is to concentrate power into the hands of unelected military men, then fine, there's no oppression to worry about. If you think the American experiment should be about having the freedom to know what our government is doing with our resources, and changing course if we think they are incorrect, then yes, the million or so people with the security clearances that allow them to know the truth are the oppressors. As we speak they are taking away our right to decide our ow

Not to mention how long can you feed the thing gas? The wiki says that pig is sucking down on SIX 3.6Mw generators and there are plans to add two more of those hogs on top of those 6. i'm sorry but if there were EVER a case for nuclear power that giant power hog would be it. if we were in an actual war situation how long would we be able to keep feeding that thing with all the other fuel needs of the country and military?

While i think drones are a good idea that thing is just too much of a piggy on conventional fuel. Instead we need more like that giant flying wing NASA was showing off, something solar powered that can stay up for weeks on end. park those suckers over anyone like NK that you are worried about, but sucking down as much gas as that oil rig radar? i just don't see that as a long term viable system, not with the cost of oil rising.

That's not the gas to move the thing, read the wiki its just the gas to run the fricking radar dome! At least with your jet aircraft once it gets to the area it can use missiles without using more fuel to fire it but with this thing with every single second of use, even when its just parked, its literally blasting through pounds of fuel per minute....and THIS is supposed to be what we use in case of a war with a power that has enough tech to launch multiple MIRVs at us? How are you gonna feed this thing?

As for how many, the Aegis Radar system can track 100+, and this system is based on that, so at the very least it should be able to track a hundred of so. Realistically, if more than 100 missiles get launched, they would never be able to be shot down in time. An ABM shield is currently only useful against an accidental, terrorist, or rogue launch of under a few dozen missiles: any more and no missile-based defense system is going to be able to stop it.

As far as interceptors go, it would be launching Patriot missiles, and the US has over 1000 launchers for them in service, so taking out a half-dozen missiles wouldn't really be a challenge. Again, in the case of a major launch by China or Russia, no missile shield even close to being built is going to do anything at all to stop it.

How many baseballs can it track at one time? And once it has figured out which are the real baseballs and which are fake*, how quickly interceptors be launched after the real ones?.. Once you know what the SBX-1 is looking for, ICBM payloads can be updated inexpensively.

Oh, we can see it during boost phase well enough. But with a mid-course interception missile system, we'll also watch one booster separate into dozens of who knows what before we can reach them. And then, what is what? Hence the need for viable boost phase interception. The airborne laser was one approach. Hit it while its still one piece and blindingly obvious what it is (no high tech X band radar needed here to spot the rockets). The airborne laser is (was) expensive. And fragile. 747s are easy to knock d

The drones are not just tracking during the boost phase, they are killing the target during the boost phase. Which is nice, because it falls right back down near or on the folks that launched it. Your bloviating about other stages of flight are meaningless because you clearly did not understand what the discussion is about.

Anyway, a boost-phase intercept is tricky because of the need to get the intercept vehicle there fast. That problem could be solved with a beam-weapon or by moving the intercept vehicle to a stand-off position much closer to the launch point. Thus, the drone equipped with it.

I have the feeling the 747 you think you know about is only the tip of the iceberg, it isn't used anymore because as a proof of concept, it worked poorly. However, it worked. The rest is engineering.

That's why the important part is to keep this sucker mobile. The boost phase of any launch is the best time to kill the projectile. It's filled with fuel, easy to see because it's spewing fire, and the countermeasures haven't had a chance to deploy yet. Of course, if you shoot a nuke down, it'll land on populated areas, but fuck them, better them than us, right? I mean, the best minds have thought about this and came to the conclusion that the best answer to countermeasures is to refuse to play the game, an

Missile defense has historically been more about economics and less about technology. The interests of the United States would be better served by beefing up retaliatory options, and demonstrating the capability and will to use them, rather than focusing so much on point defense which will always cost more than whatever is being intercepted. A stepwise menu of graduated options, ranging from cruise missile or theater ballistic missile with conventional warheads, all the way up to nuclear tipped Minuteman IC

effective decoys aren't trivial for a country like North Korea to add to their vehicles due to weight.

Right now, North Korea is having problems keeping anything up. But if we assume that they will eventually overcome their technical problems (which we must, else why do we worry so much about their current program), eventually decoys will be possible. Hint: It takes a lot less engineering prowess to build decoys than real warheads.

Again, your reading comprehension is lacking. Decoys of warheads are for the re-entry phase. Decoys of complete rockets would be required, that's not a simple engineering problem, unless your decoys never leave the pad and are there to attract Tomahawks.

Decoys are useful during the mid course 'coast', after the booster stages have separated but before warheads return to the atmosphere. Just after booster separation, it is possible to maneuver warheads to a small degree. This allows independent targeting by warheads from a single missile (MIRVs [wikipedia.org]). Its also possible to spread some decoys between them so as to make mid-course interception more difficult as well as obfuscate the identity of the actual targets and confuse terminal defense systems (if any).

Mid course is where the SBX-1 [wikipedia.org] and GMD [wikipedia.org] are expected to work.

The re-entry phase is the trickiest to defend against. Warheads are moving fast and may not be differentiated from decoys until they hit the atmosphere. From this point, there may only be seconds until a warhead reaches its target. And in those seconds, defense systems need acquire their target, calculate trajectories and the ABMs accelerated to target. If the targets are 'hard targets' (missile silos, bunkers, etc.) the job is somewhat easier in that the warhead must strike within a few hundred yards laterally and at a low altitude. This gives ABM systems a smaller footprint to protect and a shorter flight to target. Populations targets are large and can be attacked with high altitude blasts. So terminal ABM systems have to get up higher, cover larger areas and have much less decision time to work with. Guess which types of targets North Korea will most likely select.

In general, the sooner you can knock an ICBM down, the easier a job it is. Knocking them out in their silos is best.

We will be staring at a future where we have crowded areas outside countries where international law allows activities, but those activities are expressly designed to create a defensive blockade around a particular country. As the original poster has said, the cost for a semi-autonomous blockade is becoming lower and lower.

While I don't have sufficient understanding of international law, nor the science fiction authors that most likely have talked about these

The technical challenges and cost of BMD is mainly in the interceptor and tracking/targeting which has to be there weather launched from the ground or a ship at see or drone. Yes a done can be located near a country like DPRK and therefore hit at boost phase easier than intercepting further down range (Mid Course or Terminal) however this can be achieved by a ship off the coast in the same way using SM-3. Not sure the first stage of SM-3 is the complex or expensive part? ??

I would think it would be a huge advantage if they could pull if off. No need to negotiate with foreign countries for rights to maintain a ground launch installation. No need to worry about whether your sub will be surfaced at exactly the right moment. No need for the huge burn to get lifted off from the ground. Just drop into the air and cruise straight to your target.

The alternative bandied about since Star Wars by Lt Gen Abrahamson in Regan admin, was anti missile satellites. This avoids storing ABM assets in orbit. So to that extent it avoids weaponization of space. And since the drones would have limited range, Russia would not feel threatened. (Russia holds all ABM technology as arms race tipping the balance of power). It is moving from having nuclear armed bombers on 24/7 patrol on the northern Canadian border to having drones encircling North Korea/Iran 24/7. Limited area, non nuclear weapon, these are the good things you can say about this technology.

But, inevitable consequence of this would be to avoid the boost phase of ICBM. One way is cruise missile instead of a ballistic missile. The other way is to move the whole damned payload up into orbit. That would be a very dangerous development. Since countries with large area would not be at a big disadvantage here, this might be half decent solution against rogue regimes of smaller land area.

For a boost phase ABM to work, it has to reach the ICBM while the booster is burning. That would be possible for Iran or China or North Korea, but not for Russia since the interceptor would have to travel over too much land to reach the target before it went dark. Since we have successful arms control agreements with the Russians, sticking with this type of anti-missile defense might be best. The return-to-sender aspects of boost phase ABMs also seems attractive. Of course, the interceptor is also under

How effective are drones if no one is guiding them? Do your drones still work when you satalites are shot out of orbit? Do they still work when an EMP blast from a nuclear explossion takes out terrestrial communications?

We already have drones that take no fuel and never leave the sky. That's a satellite. By tracking missiles with radar and using a satellite based or local-to-that-continent weapons system to shoot them down, we get the same benefit as constantly buzzing drones without the need to pay for drones hovering around scouting. To use this type of system, all we need is to keep our eyes open using our best imaging tools (radar) and then get the imaging to talk to anti-missile weapons. Then we can use lasers, KE pen

We have airborne laser based systems capable of taking down ballistic missiles. Who's to say we didn't already use such a system to make sure the N Korean test failed? Would be a great test for the system. Plausible deniability.

can defeat many of these ballistic missile threats in their boost phase

"Boost phase" means "shortly after launch," which means being close to where it was launched from, which often means violating their airspace. So your anti-missile technology relies on giving your enemy legal justification to fire to begin with.

just a big expensive boondogle to help the sheep sleep through their sheerings. While there may be several nuclear powers willing to nuke the U.S., they wouldn't do it in a manner so traceable as a missile launch. Even North Korea isn't that crazy, I'm sure their modified fishing vessels work just fine.

There's no reason to send people under the sea when a nuclear powered robot can do the same thing, cheaper and safer. You'll lose a few, and a few nuclear payloads too - but then, that's already happened, eh? The trick will be making a decent self-destruct mechanism so that they can't be stolen and re-purposed. The cost advantages and inherent stealth of submersible drones make this a no-brainer for the military.

The international powder keg that is N. Korea is a political problem. No technical fix will "solve" it.

The regime exists because of draconian internal control. It is not self sustaining, and gets the extra resources it needs (mostly food) by blackmailing the international community. The blackmail is not solely based on their nuclear capabilities.

For S. Korea and the US, conventional warfare is a meaningful threat. At a minimum the north could take Seoul, and it would be very bloody and costly to push them back to the DMZ. This could cause the collapse of the N. Korean state, so the leadership knows it is likely a suicidal act.

For China, a collapse of the N. Korea regime would be a nightmare, because of the wave of refugees that would pour over the border. They are currently dealing with a low level refugee problem with defectors, and it is a destabilizing force in their border area with N. Korea. This is how the regime blackmails China.

China also wants to avoid having a land border with a modern Western capitalist style state. A takeover by the south is the certain outcome of the end of the northern state, just like east and west Germany. Even with the Chinese embrace of capitalist economics, the Communist Party is still the sole source of political power, and they want to keep it that way. A functioning modern Democracy on a land border would be a direct challenge to their political legitimacy. China needs a functioning N. Korea.

None of this is directly caused by N. Korea nuclear weapons. The elite leadership knows that they would be personally doomed by the use of nuclear weapons. Even if they escape alive from the conflict that would follow, there is literally no place in the world they could hide.

Nuclear weapons in N. Korea are an bargaining chip for their game of blackmail. Without them the world world would not pay them nearly as much attention, so their ability to manipulate events would be seriously diminished.

Ballistic missile defense is a US political issue first and foremost. This has been true ever since Regan's Star Wars program. Despite all the money spent and all the claims, the chances that the system works is virtually zero. The "tests"that have been done are exercises in organized lying.

Remember the first Gulf War and the Scuds? After all the claims of success, the truth finally came out, and the Patriot system was a failure. The current versions are just as broken. How do we know this? Because the number of tests needed to prove a system like this is in the hundreds, or thousands. The number of tests they actually run is in the tens. And they are all rigged to succeed. Just think of how much testing they do on jets or other missiles. And if they did real meaningful testing, then potential adversaries could observe the results and have all the information they would need to defeat it.

So this done system is ultimately more DOD pork. Therefore, we'll end up building it despite the fact that it will be completely unreliable. A non-working solution to the wrong problem.

Although technically correct, this is picking nits. There's this little hill called The Himalayas in the way. That would be a serious impediment keeping direct contact to a minimum. Unless, of course, you have the secret map to the hidden railway tunnels.

The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else.

However, they can't use it because of mutual assured destruction. Or put another way, they can use it, but the retaliation would be too devasting to contemplate.

On the defense side, a missle defense system disables the enemies ability to first strike on us. This is a good thing, and is the defensive aspect to a missile defense system.

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.

That said, we still should participate in the missile defense race, it would be beyond foolish to let our opponents develop missile defense while we have none.

However, the humanist in me would argue that the minute we developed strategic missile defense that we should give it away. The world will be a better place if NOBODY can first strike on anyone.

The world will not be a better place if any nation, including the US, can first strike with impunity.

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity.

Only if you are sure it is going to work 100% perfectly... Or maybe 98% perfectly if you are willing to accept a few cities and millions of deaths as acceptable losses. Against an opponent with many missiles a missile defence isn't that useful.

Against countries with only a few missiles though it is viable. So given that it would probably be best not to develop missile defence systems because it will only force countries like North Korea to build larger and larger arsenals to defend themselves against the US, while affording the US itself no real protection.

Exactly. Close 100% of North Korean GDP is going towards military uses whether the US has missile defense or not. Forcing North Korea to use up a large part of that budget building a larger, yet less effective, arsenal is a win.

It is all still a waste of money. They are autocracies, the only way to effectively defend against them is to convince 'Dear Leaders' and their cronies that they are number one on the hit parade and they will be targeted and eliminated as the first priority.

'Dear Leader' and his pals do not give a crap about their country or it's citizens they can all burn as long as it feeds the ego and lusts of 'Dear Leader' and his pals.

So all you need to do is convince 'Dear Leader' and his pals, that they will die should they initiate a conflict, no negotiation, no truce, no peace until they personally have been eliminated. Whether by direct conflict or assassination.

The idea that political leaders should be spared from direct personal attack during conflicts is crap. They should be the first on the firing theirs and ours, for their failure to achieve diplomatic resolution and save their citizens lives. Top down attack will see many more diplomatic resolutions and many fewer even zero conflicts.

Do your homework. Do you remember what happened to the Soviet Union? They did produce a large amount of excellent hardware but ultimately they could not keep up economically.

Except it's a myth created to justify the excesses of US military-industrial comples. Military-related production was very cheap in USSR because government owned it directly and ran it, just like the rest of the economy, as a giant nonprofit. At the same time US was stuffing the pockets of military contractors with profits, and now continues so under pretenses of fighting Muslim terrorism and similar bogeymen.

However, a missile defense system disables the opponents ability to retaliate our first strike, and is a crucial element to enabling us to first strike with impunity. That is a very VERY offensive element to missle defense systems.

Nobody wants to risk everything on a worldwide missle defense system that's never been operationally tested. Nobody wants to live in a world where several other continents have been nuked into radioactive ash. Believe me, the people planning and building missle defense systems sincerely hope that they never have to be used. Nobody's imagining it as an enabler for a first-strike capability.

However, the humanist in me would argue that the minute we developed strategic missile defense that we should give it away. The world will be a better place if NOBODY can first strike on anyone.

..we will offer it as a no cost option to any country that wants to fall in line with American interests...so it becomes a diplomatic and strategic tool for keeping our allies close and gaining new ones.

I find these rebuttals humorous in the sense that opposition to missile defense comes in two opposing forms: 1) missile defense should not be implemented because it is a waste of money since it is such an immature a technology that even if widely implemented a few MIRVs can still penetrate, and 2) missile defense should not be implemented because such an effective shield would make the shield bearer more willing to nuke another country.

In criticizing ballistic missile defense, these systems are made out to be at once completely ineffective and completely effective. I think this contradiction points to a conclusion somewhere in the middle: that ballistic missile defense partially effective, and that it really has only one use, which is to safe guard against errant launches and rogue groups in possession of at most a handful of missiles. In other words, it fails as a strategic threat.

This is why, in addition to the US, Russia and China, along with many regional powers around the world, have active anti missile systems in place, and why the US isn't moving against existing or new systems in those countries (which it would if it in fact wanted to "strike with impunity").

"The major powers already have enough offensive to destroy anyone else."

Not true and it shows your blind spot on the subject. If you only view Russia, a single possible enemy, as the intended target. We are dangerously low, if not below the threshold, of not being able to strike every military target of interest. Just military targets mind you. The reality of today, with many decades of understanding the threat of nuclear weapons many people have built nuclear secure complexes that are large weapon sinks

No, It is not defensive when its presence is the only way a nuclear first strike would be contemplated.

nuke = can't use as first strike weapon without risk of destruction of self by retaliatory strike."missile defense" = now I can use nuke as first strike weapon without concern of retaliatory strike."missile defense" is a first strike weaponQED

If someone in the US government thinks he can use nukes without consequences of a counter-strike, he might actually vaporize a few million people, set off a chain of

Two of the biggest cold warriors in history, Nixon and Brezhnev, decided that missile defense systems were a Really Bad Idea (TM). Down the road of "missile missile anti missile missile" madness lies. Unilateral changes in these kinds of policies are very unwelcome and destabilizing. Imagine the US reaction if China started to pursue this sort of technology.

That statement was true in their time when only the US and USSR had ICBM technology. Things have changed in the last 35 years where a the big boys are generally not aiming at each other and there are a proliferation of smaller countries who have or are researching nukes. A 35 year old statement is probably not so relevant today. All it takes is one nuke in the hands of a country that will accept the deaths of thousands of their own people to hold any country hostage. What do you do when North Korea says "Ab

This whole "defensive==good, offensive==bad" assumption is ridiculous. You can't separate one from the other.

Let's say your country is threatened by another country with nukes. You obtain your own nukes and delivery systems, which are *offensive*, but they accomplish a defensive goal: to prevent an attack. Now let's say you've got your MAD scenario going, and you somehow obtain completely effective missile defense. You have now gained an *offensive* capability: the ability to strike without fear of conseq

Which can be effectively addressed through targeted killings. The Israelis have demonstrated time and again the effectiveness of killing key personnel whether they be terrorist leaders or enemy nuclear scientists. Targeted killings are effective, provided that they're used sparingly. In the case of a nuclear or missile program, this goes hand in hand with sabotage and misinformation campaigns. Helping to ensure that faulty data and or parts/equipment find their way into enemy hands (the North Koreans curren

America and the Soviet Union agreed that each could protect one target. The Soviets decided to protect their largest population centre and America planned to protect N. Dakota but never bothered. Note the key word agreement.

And parent comment written by... an anti-US propagandist? Seriously, do you work for Vladimir Putin or something?

You are playing word games when you claim that missile defense systems are an offensive weapon. And regarding the Bush quote that gives you such indigestion, if you think about it for at least 5 seconds, it will occur to you why your objections to his statement are asinine. If the USA couldn't use its nuclear weapons, there would be no point in having them. Duh. You may not like the fact th

In fact, most historians agree that a major cause of WW1 was that, with commercial rivalry between Britain and Germany, the British started to build new and more powerful battlecruisers (Dreadnoughts) which led Germany to suspect that Britain intended to limit Germany by denying the seas to merchants. This led to an arms race and a growing belief that the only outcome could be war.

So yes, since naval fleets were basically defensive (cannot win a land war with a Navy), the build up of defensive capability on

You need to know where it is (difficult in case of a mobile launcher) and/or be able to penetrate a hardened shelter. Or a pre-emptive strike might not be politically feasible (clever dictators will build their launchers in the "nursery home and children's hospital" district) And if you wish to strike with when a launch is detected, you will need to have aircraft ready on CAP (continuous air presence). Dangerous and expensive with regular aircraft when your air superiority is iffy; but doable with drones

Staticly based ICBMs are usually housed in hardened bunkers designed to withstand concentrated attacks. And mobile launchers are difficult to find. Drones are a good answer for both; you hit the missle during first phase, which would be difficult for the launching belligerant to conceal. Air superiority may not be nessessary with drones, they're too small and can fly too low to be seen with most warning systems. Of course you need to know where the mobile launcher is for the drone to be effective against t